Save Healthcare Workers Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Dean, Madeleine [D-PA-4]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 5, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance the safety of hospital workers by creating a federal offense for assault and providing financial assistance for hospital security measures.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new federal crime for knowingly assaulting hospital personnel during the performance of their duties, with enhanced penalties for acts involving dangerous weapons, bodily injury, or occurring during a public emergency. It also authorizes a new grant program, administered by the Attorney General, to provide funding to hospitals for violence prevention programs, including training, coordination with law enforcement, and security technologies.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill addresses a serious and escalating national problem of violence against healthcare workers, which significantly disrupts the delivery of health care services, leads to adverse patient outcomes, and contributes to decreased productivity and increased employee turnover. They contend that existing federal law is inadequate and that greater federal involvement, both through criminalization and grants, is necessary to protect essential personnel and ensure the functioning of a critical sector of the national economy.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that violent crimes are primarily a matter for state and local authorities, and that federalizing these offenses could lead to an overreach of federal power, potentially straining federal resources and creating inconsistencies with existing state laws. Concerns might also be raised about the scope of the 'public emergency' clause for enhanced penalties or the practical application of the affirmative defense for individuals with disabilities.
The bill is concise and its provisions are relatively straightforward, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core impacts within a short timeframe.
Section 2(b), amending Chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, by adding new section 120(a)
Creation of Federal Offense for Assaulting Hospital Personnel
This provision establishes a new federal crime for any individual who knowingly assaults an individual employed by a hospital or a hospital contractor while that individual is performing their duties, if the assault interferes with or limits their ability to perform those duties. Violators face fines under Title 18, imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision provides a critical federal tool to deter and punish violence against hospital workers, acknowledging the serious national problem that impacts interstate commerce and healthcare delivery. They contend that federal involvement is necessary to supplement state efforts and ensure a consistent response to these crimes.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that this provision represents an over-federalization of crimes traditionally handled by state and local authorities, potentially leading to redundant prosecutions or diverting federal resources from other priorities. They might argue that existing state laws are sufficient if adequately enforced.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for enhanced protection for healthcare workers with concerns about federal overreach into criminal justice matters typically reserved for states. It also creates a tension between federal and state prosecutorial discretion.
Section 2(b), adding new section 120(b) to title 18, United States Code
Enhanced Penalties for Aggravated Assaults
This section specifies enhanced penalties for assaults against hospital personnel. If the assault involves the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon, results in bodily injury, or is committed during a declared public emergency (such as a public health emergency or a Stafford Act disaster declaration), the perpetrator faces increased penalties of fines under Title 18, imprisonment for up to 20 years, or both.
Section 2(b), adding new section 120(c) to title 18, United States Code
Affirmative Defense for Individuals with Disabilities
This provision establishes an affirmative defense for a defendant prosecuted under this section if they are a person with a physical, mental, or intellectual disability, and their conduct constituting the assault was a clear and direct manifestation of that disability. This means the defendant would need to prove these conditions to avoid conviction under this specific federal statute.
Section 2(c), inserting new Part PP into Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Establishment of Hospital Workforce Safety Grant Program
This section authorizes the Attorney General to establish a grant program for hospitals. The purpose of these grants is to fund programs aimed at reducing violence within hospitals, including violence or intimidation against hospital personnel. Eligible uses of funds include training (e.g., de-escalation, mental health crisis response), coordination with state and local law enforcement, and the implementation of security technologies like access controls, video surveillance, metal detectors, and panic buttons.
Section 2(c), adding new section 3065 to Part PP of Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Authorization of Appropriations for Grant Program
This section authorizes the appropriation of $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2034 to fund the hospital workforce safety and security grant program. The funds appropriated for a given fiscal year are specified to remain available until expended, allowing for flexibility in their use over time.
The bill defines 'hospital' by cross-referencing several existing definitions within the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(e), 1395x(ccc), 1395ww(j)(1)(A), 1395ww(d)(1)(B)(iii), 1395ww(d)(1)(B)(v), 1395x(mm)(1), 1395x(kkk)(2)). This includes general hospitals, long-term care hospitals, rehabilitation facilities, cancer hospitals, children's hospitals, critical access hospitals, and rural emergency hospitals.
Section 2(b), adding new section 120(d)(1) to title 18, United States Code
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid re-listing lengthy definitions and ensure consistency with existing federal law and regulatory frameworks governing healthcare facilities.
Case for: Supporters argue that using established definitions ensures clarity, avoids ambiguity, and provides comprehensive coverage for a wide range of healthcare settings that employ personnel vulnerable to violence.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against using established definitions, but a casual reader might not immediately grasp the full scope of facilities covered without consulting the referenced statutes.
Estimated impact: Broadens the applicability of the federal assault statute and grant program to a comprehensive array of medical facilities, encompassing most acute and specialized care settings.
The bill defines 'declaration of a public emergency' for the purpose of enhanced penalties. It includes public health emergencies declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act, and emergencies or disasters declared by the President pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
Section 2(b), adding new section 120(d)(2) to title 18, United States Code
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to leverage existing, well-understood legal frameworks for emergency declarations, ensuring consistency and avoiding the creation of new, potentially conflicting definitions.
Case for: Proponents argue that linking enhanced penalties to established emergency declarations provides clear, objective triggers for increased protection during times when healthcare systems and personnel are under heightened stress and vulnerability.
Case against: Some might argue that the scope of these declarations can be very broad and prolonged, potentially leading to enhanced penalties being applied more frequently or for longer durations than initially intended, raising concerns about proportionality.
Estimated impact: Expands the circumstances under which aggravated assaults against hospital personnel would incur significantly higher federal penalties, particularly during widespread crises.